Abstract: The experiments investigated how two adult captive chimpanzees learned to navigate in an automated interception task. They had to capture a visual target that moved predictably on a touch monitor. The aim of the study was to determine the learning stages that led to an efficient strategy of intercepting the target. The chimpanzees had prior training in moving a finger on a touch monitor and were exposed to the interception task without any explicit training. With a finger the subject could move a small “ball” at any speed on the screen toward a visual target that moved at a fixed speed either back and forth in a linear path or around the edge of the screen in a rectangular pattern. Initial ball and target locations varied from trial to trial. The subjects received a small fruit reinforcement when they hit the target with the ball. The speed of target movement was increased across training stages up to 38 cm/s. Learning progressed from merely chasing the target to intercepting the target by moving the ball to a point on the screen that coincided with arrival of the target at that point. Performance improvement consisted of reduction in redundancy of the movement path and reduction in the time to target interception. Analysis of the finger's movement path showed that the subjects anticipated the target's movement even before it began to move. Thus, the subjects learned to use the target's initial resting location at trial onset as a predictive signal for where the target would later be when it began moving. During probe trials, where the target unpredictably remained stationary throughout the trial, the subjects first moved the ball in anticipation of expected target movement and then corrected the movement to steer the ball to the resting target. Anticipatory ball movement in probe trials with novel ball and target locations (tested for one subject) showed generalized interception beyond the trained ball and target locations. The experiments illustrate in a laboratory setting the development of a highly complex and adaptive motor performance that resembles navigational skills seen in natural settings where predators intercept the path of moving prey.

Abstract: We examined the ability of domestic dogs to choose the larger versus smaller quantity of food in two experiments. In experiment 1, we investigated the ability of 29 dogs (results from 18 dogs were used in the data analysis) to discriminate between two quantities of food presented in eight different combinations. Choices were simultaneously presented and visually available at the time of choice. Overall, subjects chose the larger quantity more often than the smaller quantity, but they found numerically close comparisons more difficult. In experiment 2, we tested two dogs from experiment 1 under three conditions. In condition 1, we used similar methods from experiment 1 and tested the dogs multiple times on the eight combinations from experiment 1 plus one additional combination. In conditions 2 and 3, the food was visually unavailable to the subjects at the time of choice, but in condition 2, food choices were viewed simultaneously before being made visually unavailable, and in condition 3, they were viewed successively. In these last two conditions, and especially in condition 3, the dogs had to keep track of quantities mentally in order to choose optimally. Subjects still chose the larger quantity more often than the smaller quantity when the food was not simultaneously visible at the time of choice. Olfactory cues and inadvertent cuing by the experimenter were excluded as mechanisms for choosing larger quantities. The results suggest that, like apes tested on similar tasks, some dogs can form internal representations and make mental comparisons of quantity.

Abstract: Imitation can be defined as the copying of behavior. To a biologist, interest in imitation is focused on its adaptive value for the survival of the organism, but to a psychologist, the mechanisms responsible for imitation are the most interesting. For psychologists, the most important cases of imitation are those that involve demonstrated behavior that the imitator cannot see when it performs the behavior (e.g., scratching one's head). Such examples of imitation are sometimes referred to as opaque imitation because they are difficult to account for without positing cognitive mechanisms, such as perspective taking, that most animals have not been acknowledged to have. The present review first identifies various forms of social influence and social learning that do not qualify as opaque imitation, including species-typical mechanisms (e.g., mimicry and contagion), motivational mechanisms (e.g., social facilitation, incentive motivation, transfer of fear), attentional mechanisms (e.g., local enhancement, stimulus enhancement), imprinting, following, observational conditioning, and learning how the environment works (affordance learning). It then presents evidence for different forms of opaque imitation in animals, and identifies characteristics of human imitation that have been proposed to distinguish it from animal imitation. Finally, it examines the role played in opaque imitation by demonstrator reinforcement and observer motivation. Although accounts of imitation have been proposed that vary in their level of analysis from neural to cognitive, at present no theory of imitation appears to be adequate to account for the varied results that have been found.

Abstract: In a conditional discrimination (matching-to-sample), a sample is followed by two comparison stimuli, one of which is correct, depending on the sample. Evidence from previous research suggests that if the stimulus display is maintained following an incorrect response (the so-called penalty-time procedure), acquisition by pigeons is facilitated. The present research tested the hypothesis that the penalty-time procedure allows the pigeons to review and learn from the maintained stimulus display following an incorrect choice. It did so by including a penalty-time group for which, following an incorrect choice, the sample changed to match the incorrect comparison, thus providing the pigeons with post-choice 'misinformation.' This misinformation group acquired the matching task significantly slower than the standard penalty-time group (that had no change in the sample following an error). Furthermore, acquisition of matching by a control group that received no penalty time fell midway between the other two groups, suggesting that the pigeons did not merely take more care in making choices because of the aversiveness of penalty-time. Thus, it appears that in the acquisition of matching-to-sample, when the stimulus display is maintained following an incorrect choice, the pigeons can review or acquire information from the display. This is the first time that such an effect has been reported for a nonhuman species.

Abstract: A number of nonhuman primate species have demonstrated the ability to use a joystick to control a cursor on a computer screen, yet the acquisition of this skill has not been the focus of systematic inquiry. Here, we examined joystick acquisition in four tufted capuchins under two directional relationships of joystick movement and resultant cursor displacement, isomorphic and inverted. To document the natural history of the acquisition of this skill, we recorded the development of visual tracking of the cursor and body tilting. Rates of acquisition were comparable between the two conditions. After mastering the task in one condition, subjects remastered the task at an accelerated rate in the opposing condition. All subjects significantly increased or maintained high proportions of cursor tracking throughout acquisition. All subjects demonstrated a postural tilt while moving the cursor from the mid-phase of acquisition through task mastery. In the isomorphic condition, all subjects tilted significantly more often in the direction of goal location than in the opposite direction. In three of the four series of tilting that were scored for subjects in the inverted condition, tilting occurred significantly more often toward the direction of goal location than the direction of required hand movement. Together these findings suggest that body tilting participates in the organization of directional movement of the cursor rather than reflecting merely the motoric requirements of the task (to manipulate a joystick).